Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIt was supposed to be the night Barack Obama took Hillary Clinton down.
But, when all was said and done, Obama was a bystander.
The opening question in Tuesday's Democratic presidential debate was a softball pitch from NBC's Brian Williams to the senator from Illinois. Noting Obama's interview in the Sunday New York Times, in which the senator from Illinois promised to get tough with Clinton for acting like a Republican, Williams asked him detail the votes and statements from Clinton to which he objected.
Obama should have been ready to knock that one out of the park. Instead, he swung and missed.
"Some of this stuff gets over-hyped," said Obama, who then tried to tell a boxing joke before rambling on about his support for "big meaningful change."
Finally, the Illinoisan suggested that Clinton had flip-flopped on trade, torture and Iraq -- moving in each case from bad positions to better ones -- while admitting that her evolutions might have been "politically savvy."
Asked for a rebuttal, the frontrunner seized the opening, noted the many attacks on her by GOP presidential candidates and then delivered a classic debate one-liner: "I don't think the Republicans got the message that I'm voting and sounding like them."
Touché!
Were it left to Obama, Clinton would not only have escaped the night unscathed, she might actually have come out ahead.
But this is a multi-candidate race. Where Obama was unfocused and ineffectual, John Edwards landed plenty of blows. The former senator from North Carolina began by suggesting that "it's fair" to talk about essential differences between the candidates. Then he highlighted a big one. "(Clinton) says she'll stand up to George Bush," argued Edwards. "In fact, she voted to give George W. Bush the first step to war on Iran..."
Ouch! That reference to Clinton's vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman resolution declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which read an awfully lot like a signal to Bush that he has congressional support for an attack on attack Iraq, opened up a highly engaged discussion that saw several of the candidates, led by Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd -- saying in reference to Clinton's vote of five years ago to authorize Bush to attack Iraq: "What you didn't learn by 2002, you should have learned by now" -- aggressively question Clinton's judgement. It was a smart, at times intense dialogue. Kucinich even got in a call for impeaching Bush and Cheney in order to restore the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches on questions of war-making.
But Edwards owned the moment. Accusing Clinton of voting for an Iran resolution that read like it was "written literally by the neo-cons," the 2004 vice presidential nominee declared, "We need to stand up to this president. We need to make it absolutely clear that we will not let Bush, Cheney and this administration invade Iran."
Edwards was identifying himself "as the clear, sharp alternative," observed NBC commentator Domenico Montanaro. "This is wedging going on. (Edwards) might be elbowing Obama out of the way on this issue. (Obama's), albeit reasonable, but tepid answer on this, just wasn't grabbing the spotlight."
"In the competition to see who would be the sharpest Clinton attacker, Edwards won by far," said Newsweek's Howard Fineman, referring to the North Carolinian's reference to Clinton and the neo-cons.
It wasn't just a fight about Iran, however. Edwards hit hard, and effectively, on every front. After detailing the front-runner's contributions from defense contractors and other corporate interests, he said. "If people want the status quo, Senator Clinton ☼'s your candidate."
That's tough talk. Blunt talk. The sort of talk that Barack Obama seemed to suggest that he was going to deliver Tuesday night.
But it came from John Edwards, who ended the night as the candidate who had done the best job of defining himself as the alternative to Hillary Clinton.
John Nichols' new book is The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
Copyright © 2007 The Nation
36 Comments so far
Show AllI'd love to see Kucinich as part of Hillary's cabinet, maybe as Secretary of UFOs and Jedi Affairs. Yet another comedic article by The Nation and John Nichols, supporting Edwards who voted for the war before becoming the VP LOSER in 04. Edwards is a homophobe and a corporatist. Amazing how The Nation can see him as a serious progressive alternative.
The Nation should be writing articles supporting Sheehan, not Edwards. Jellocrats must be destroyed in the next election f we want real change.
Who is "we", iammyself? Name the Republican you would accept over Hillary. Maybe it's Ron Paul, who is basically Grover Norquist with a get-out-of-Iraq plank in his agenda. Or maybe it's Mike Banana-fana-fuckabee and his nice-guy Creationism. And that's the best of a truly sorry lot.
No, I'll take any Dem over any Goppie any day, any way--even Hillary. Better to light one candle than curse the darkness. Or curse the lack of ample sunshine.
If I had my druthers, ordering my preference IRV-style, I'd go Kucinich, then Edwards, then Dodd, then Biden, then Richardson. Obama just doesn't have enough resume, Gravel is too old and wacko, and we all know about Hillary. But I'd take any of them over the likes of Godfather Giuliani or Plastic Man Romney.
Star of the Sea:
Re Hillary vs. Rudy, I do not know what polls you are looking at, but a CNN poll taken just prior to the summer showed Hillary just edging out Rudy in a two-way race. Pundits are split on this. However, in any event, Hillary has at very least a BETTER chance of defeating Rudy than either Obama or Edwards.
Re her being "pro-corporatist," many of you are under some bizarre delusion. EVERY candidate in BOTH parties - with the possible exception of Ron Paul and, to a slightly lesser degree (perhaps), Dennis Kucinich - is "pro-corporatist," "owned" by special interests, and beholden to their large donors. The idea that Obama and Edwards are somehow different from Hillary in this regard is at best naive and at worst willfully ignorant.
That is the nature of the "political beast" that is the two-party system. If people want to vote for a third party candidate, fine. But to argue that one two-party candidate is somehow "better" than another vis-a-vis corporate interests etc. flies in the face of history and is self-deluding.
Re Mordechai's comment that "any Republican" would beat Hillary, again the polls show otherwise. In fact, Rudy is the only candidate who presents a real challenge. In every poll I've seen, Hillary wipes the floor with most of them, beats both Romney and McCain by comfortable margins, and, as noted, is the only candidate who has a chance of beating Rudy.
Re jetsom's comment that Hillary is "a creature of political ambition," this is of a piece with the other comments above: are you suggesting that the other candidates are not? The vast majority of people who enter politics are "creatures of political ambition" - or they wouldn't be politicians! Again, to suggest otherwise is willfully naive. This is not to say that some politicians are not "better" than others, but that "better-ness" is reflected first and foremost in how their own constituents (i.e., in the States or districts they represent) view them - i.e., how well they do for those constituents - and secondly in their positions on broader issues.
In this regard, Hillary has been an outstanding Senator (I am a constituent), practically from the get-go. And she has continued to prove herself: after all, she was re-elected by one of the largest margins in the history of New York State politics. As for broader issues, I have made my comments about these; while I believe that her more "hawkish" positions were taken for political expediency, that is exactly the point: as noted, she knew early on that if she did not create some kind of "bona fides" in this regard, she could never be elected "Commander in Chief," particularly during a "War on Terror" (whatever one may think of that phrase, or the entire idea).
Yet here again, Hillary is little or no different than ANY politician: ALL politicians create various types of "bona fides" on various issues in order to get elected, and ALL of them make campaign promises that they know they cannot or will not keep. What makes Hillary so different here? Once again, it is the absurd perception that the other candidates are somehow "lily white" in this regard. Poppycock.
When people here start facing reality - reality about U.S. politics, reality about campaigning, reality about how one gets elected, reality about the broad view of a candidate's accomplishments, experience, etc. - you will realize that, while there is much to like about Kucinich (and even more about Ron Paul), neither of them is electable, and NONE of the other candidates is ANY DIFFERENT than Hillary.
Peace.
"Thus, while I have great respect and admiration for the idealists here, most of you are being hopelessly unrealistic if the goal is to put a Democrat in the White House. Because I think we would agree that ANY Democrat is better than ANY Republican at this point."
We don't agree.
Good analyses by many here, particularly with regard to how it would be easier for the corporate media to explain unexpected election results, that vary from exit polls, if Hillary is the nominee (e.g. "The voters were embarrassed to tell the pollsters that they would not vote for a woman for president, and so they lied about it and falsely said they voted for Hillary.")
Another danger of nominating Hillary is that it reinforces the corporate oligarchy's message that the elections should be just about the social issues, because those are the only issues where she deviates significantly from the Republicans (though a Giuliani nomination confuses that as he is closer to Hillary on those issues than to his own party). Under the corporate media's framing, we are all supposed to agree that Milton Friedman "free market" prescriptions (actually simplistic nonsense designed to provide a fig leaf for plunder) are the only rational course and the only legitimate policy arguments are about the social issues.
On the other hand, from all the articles that have been written about him, Giuliani is a certifiable lunatic (Cheney on steroids) who is likely to discard the Bill of Rights and institute a police state as he starts WWIII, and so I can never say never with regard to voting for Hillary.
It was great to see the neocon lite Hillary W. Clinton get her comeuppance. Her faux moderate song was out of tune and her devious dance clumsy. She's a political opportunist of no principles and no vision, a willing shill of big donors. Furthermore, her nomination would, given her high negative ratings, increase the risk of a Republican victory and all the disasters that would entail.
We should all vote and campaign for Kucinich.
At the same time of the 3 anointed by the Corporate Media I have always thought Edwards the most progressive and independent. He has his own fortune which he made by suing
on behalf of citizens. Whether it is right that lawyers should make so much money from this at least he has been on the right side.
Get out there and work as hard as you can.
Do NOT believe the BS from the Corporate Media and Beltway punditocracy who also could not predict the 2006 elections.
Americans in all walks of life are fed up and disgusted with the direction of this country.
Here are a couple examples which just give an indication - a family I know had their father sent to Iraq and luckily he returned safely last year. His wife was totally sympathetic to my remarks against the Iraq War and said her husband was getting out.
Tonite I was called to raise funds for some Police missing children ID campaign. When I said that I was saving all my contributions for Peace since War was costing us a half trillion dollars the caller was totally in agreement and thought the Iraq War was costing a trillion dollars. "yes we should be funding education instead of the War..."
The Roves of the World WANT you to give up - the only reason Republiguns began to win elections was precisely by LOWERING TURNOUT. The smear campaigns, mud-slinging and making people give up on politics is all in their game plan. If you give up they win.
Support Dennis - talk him up to everyone you know...
Nobody thought Ned Lamont had a chance in hell either - and although he did not knock off Lieberman he came close.
Apartheid fell after decades since Gandhi helped found the African National Congress.
The Berlin Wall fell without a shot being fired.
Change is possible...
Make it happen!
Just heard OnPoint with a discussion about the debate in Philly and they actually played a clip by Dennis Kucinich who didn't attack Hilary but the whole damned party, especially for caving on the Wall Street taxing proposal. Guess the big boys descended on Capital Hill with their suitcases of money and Harry Reid pulled it. Eat your hearts out, you secretaries of the Hedge fund billionaire hotshots. You will continue to pay a larger percent of your earnings than your bosses will. Anyone else need a reason to work for a People's Party from now until it happens? And do you stilll think DK is a stealth candidate trying to keep us unruly progressives in the fold? And from what I heard, he was the only candidate who got spontaneous applause with his comments. Guess that's reason enough for the MSM and the Party to make sure his opportunities to show them all up are few and far between. It will take time but eventually, unless we descend into a police state first, the people will be heard and the powers that be are not gonna like what we have to say! Guess they can all just move to Dubai.
It's good to know that Mrs. Clinton's people check the comments here (Maani). Let me put it this way, and I speak for several friends and family: I could not bring myself to vote for her. I'm capable of voting for equivocating lesser-evils, but not her. The difference between her and GWB: He's a child of wealth who believes in his job of shoveling more wealth to his cronies. She's a creature of political ambition who is willing to do what it takes, and, to her and her supporters, that means being a war-hawk corporatist, building on her Goldwater-republican roots. I.e, no progressive-minded person should ever vote for. She's the only one who could lose a fair election to MittRudy. More people believe the WMDs are in Syria than believe she's the most electable of the dems, Maani.
Disappointing article.
Typical MSM horse race drivel. Who was "forceful", who was not, who was slouching, whose tie matched their talking points... blah blah blah
What madness, or is it just plain foolishness, possesses Democratic voters that they are willing (at this point, anyway) to give Clinton the nomination? She is owned lock, stock and whiskey barrel by the same people and forces that own the Republicans. Do Democrats actually think her husband will be running the show? Her defeat by almost any Republican is certain. Maybe she can defeat Tom Tancredo. They'll wipe the floor with her. Or is this whole country simply on an unstoppable downward spiral that nothing can stop?
Maani, Sorry but all I can say to your last sentence is, what polls have you been reading? Hilary is being pushed down our collective throats because if she's the Democratic candidate, she has the best chance of being defeated by Guiliani. Read the polls, dear. And secondly, if the thugs plan to steal still another election, they have to have a rationale, or reasonable excuse for why a Rethug won, and for how the Dems could possibly lose in spite of massive disgust by the population at large. I can hear it now on November 3rd, The pundits will get onboard and say, "Gee whiz, I guess Hilary was just too polorizing a figure, or Gee whiz, I guess the American people just aren't ready for a woman president." And if she does win, well, there you have it, we get another pro-corporatist sell out, who will not rule our endless war, will not give us anything but for-profit sick care,and the gatekeepers can't lose no matter how the dime turns. Unless we stop this charade, we are doomed, folks! When the wolf is wearing sheep's clothing, prepare to get fleeced.
Eh...
I'm still voting for Kucinich.
I am somewhat surprised that the "common wisdom" here is neither common (anymore) nor wise.
First, even if Hillary is "polarizing" to each of you personally, she is no longer nearly as polarizing a figure to the general populace as she once was. Indeed, while she will ALWAYS be polarizing to the right, her approval ratings by the general U.S. populace have risen consistently over the last few years, and particularly of late.
Second, even if Hillary is a product of the two-party political machine system, so are all the other candidates to various degrees. NONE of them are true "outsiders" who are somehow any more likely to reform the system than Hillary is. [N.B. While it is true that Edwards has taken little if any "corporate" money, he has taken an enormous sum from the trial lawyers association, so he is not exactly lily-white in this department.]
Third, even if Hillary's positions on the war, Iran, etc. are somewhat more "hawkish" than other candidates (and keep in mind that Edwards voted for the war powers, and Obama has been "talking tough" on Iran of late, almost as much as Hillary), don't forget that whoever is chosen must be able to defeat the Republican candidate (most likely Giuliani at this point), who is almost certainly going to be riding the "fear-terrorism" platform. In other words, even if Hillary's "hawkish" positions are strategic, they have done little to affect her base, and are more likely to take at least a few votes away from the Republicans. Neither Edwards nor Obama is likely to do so. Indeed, despite the belief here that Hillary is still "polarizing" overall, I would still give her a better chance against Giuliani than either Edwards or Obama. [N.B. If you are truly interested in Hillary's positions, pick up the Nov/Dec issue of Foreign Affairs, in which she has a lengthy, informative piece on this.]
Thus, while I have great respect and admiration for the idealists here, most of you are being hopelessly unrealistic if the goal is to put a Democrat in the White House. Because I think we would agree that ANY Democrat is better than ANY Republican at this point. And for my money, no matter what quibbles I may have with Hillary, she is by far the most electable of all the candidates - especially in a match-up with Giuliani.
Peace.
It's come down to picking the Anybody But Hillary candidate. Dennis would certainly make the best president and he wins every debate, given that he actually answers questions, but he's aced out of the marketplace. I think it's time to forget Obama and make Edwards the ABH candidate.
The Repugs got all three branches of government by being partisan and Obama wants more bipartisanship? Appeasing the Repugs lost us everything and the bipartisan corporate cash recipients are calling for more? FUCK BI-PARTISANSHIP! I WANT PARTISANSHIP!
farka said:
"Yeah, he opposed marijuana decriminalization. Given everything that is on the table at this moment in history, will you seriously not vote for a candidate based on that issue? I think he is wrong on that, but it doesn’t make a difference because it isn’t an issue that will even come up. When pharma & synthetics & the infrastructure that earns so much on the drug war choose to have marijuana decriminalized, that’s when it’ll happen and not before.
Show a little practicality here. Really, people. This message board resembles a caricature of the ineffectual leftist, who refuses to compromise anything, even to a person who is mainly on point."
Maybe I should have made things more clear. Any politician who is against marijuana legalization is a drug warrior of the worst kind and responsible for destroying thousands of lives by imprisoning, killing, invading homes and attacking other countries in a racist, fascist half a trillion dollar WOD that serve the interests of Big Pharma "the infrastructure that earns so much on the drug war" like drug enforcement, drug cartels a corrupt judicial system and as an issue to frighten people into voting for them. Not voting for a drug warrior is my way of bringing this issue to the forefront, where it belongs.
Hillary Clinton the frontrunner? This is incredible.
What better way to lose in 2008 than to nominate the one person who would electrify and mobilize the opposition's base while demoralizing and demobilizing your own base.
Here's the tough call: Are the Democrats hopelessly corrupt or impossibly stupid? Or both?
Hillary Clinton is the most hated woman in America. She sends the Wing-Nuts into a frenzy and the Progressive base of the Democratic Party views her with contempt. She will lead the lemmings right over the cliff!
We may all agree on one thing - Clinton is the Democrat choice by the lobbyists and the media. Rupert Murdoch (he of Fox News) held a fund-raiser for her. Who is the media selling us? Clinton.
Edwards has not taken any money from corporate lobbyists. Kucinich is my hero too. I really want Clinton to NOT win the nomination, but I fear that the media will get her elected. Then we will have the same government with a little Democratic Party flavor. (same shit, different topping)
Chris Mathews is a dumb jerk! Dennis said he saw a UFO and who hasn't? Anytime you look at something flying in the sky that you can't identify you can properly call it a UFO= unidentified flying object.
For the most part I was disgusted with the "debate". All that blather about "bi-partisan cooperation, working with those across the isle, seeking a middle ground, and comprimising" made me want to puke. I want a LIBERAL candadate for president who will punch conservative lights out when needed, and not some namby-pamby appeaser who prefers to kiss the conservatives asses. Compromising with the fascists is what got us where we are now. Time to roll-back all those big business favors legislated over the past 30 years. We want a new direction and from what I saw last light DENNIS IS THE MAN!
Listen to yourselves! Yeah, Edwards voted for the war. That wasn't very keen, but I am a whole lot more concerned about the next war than the last one.
Yeah, he opposed marijuana decriminalization. Given everything that is on the table at this moment in history, will you seriously not vote for a candidate based on that issue? I think he is wrong on that, but it doesn't make a difference because it isn't an issue that will even come up. When pharma & synthetics & the infrastructure that earns so much on the drug war choose to have marijuana decriminalized, that's when it'll happen and not before.
Show a little practicality here. Has anyone come further away from the 2002 position on the war? Is anyone with a conceivable chance of the nomination LESS in the pocket of those interests that dominate our political culture? Who, of the six candidates we actually have to choose from on both sides, is LEAST likely to make the foreign policy situation worse? Who is for the working class?
Really, people. This message board resembles a caricature of the ineffectual leftist, who refuses to compromise anything, even to a person who is mainly on point.
And I'm a Nader guy, for heaven's sake! We have to accept some of the political/media realities in order to change any of them.
The MSM destroyed Dean. Last night they tried to destroy Kucinich. Chris Mathews is a whore.
Edwards was the only candidate against marijuana legalization. Big failure in judgement, or just playing to the right? He lost my vote.
Your vote will only count in the primaries. And even that is pretty iffy. I'm a Kucinich supporter. And will continue to actively support him right up to the primariy vote. I have to say, though, that I find Hillary SO SCAREY when it comes to Iraq/Iran/Warmongering, that I may have to consider Edwards for my primary vote if Kucinich isn't a real contender by that time. I don't agree with Edwards on everything, the way I do Kucinich, but I know that he actually would represent We the People if nominated for Prez. At least he would listen to us.
Of course, none of this really matters if we don't have an election.
Impeach NOW!! Or forever hold your peace.
P.S. Don't EVER vote for a PARTY! Don't EVER donate to a PARTY! Only donate or vote for PEOPLE that represent YOU!
You're funny, whateveryousay, and sadly, exactly right. I didn't watch the last two debates, because they aren't really debates and I get too frustrated by the "moderator" ignoring Dennis. I'm also pissed that they threw Gravel overboard and that AARP censored any talk of single payer health care by excluding Kucinich and Gravel from the debate they sponsored.
I think most Americans are wandering around thinking they are living in Pleasantville. Even people writing essays for Commondreams talk about what we have become. We always were what we have become, but the curtain is pulled back, thanks to the Internet. Unfortunately, many don't have access, and even many who do don't use it.
drwswhite, if you've been paying attention to the past, I wouldn't put too much hope in just "any of those candidates in Philadelphia". Right now they're courting our votes. But when it's time to consummate, they will be in bed with the corporations, and the voters will be betrayed again. Anyone starting to feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick Lucy's football? There's a word for what you're doing, it's called enabling. The Democratic Party is counting on your cooperation.
Edwards voted for the war. I will not vote for him. Period.
and we have the opening bell...
it's a right from edwards followed by a quick upper cut but a miss, clinton counters with a sidestep and a jab,
in steps obama, does a rope a dope and a shuffle, followed up with a hard right which scores a little,
kucinich is pushed aside by the ref once again and clinton steps in for a....
is this a sports cast?
Where is campaign reform and a real candidate's forum? Waste of space....
I didn't get the same impression about Edwards--he seemed luke-warm on the issues. He did attack Senator Clinton, but I didn't find those attacks necessarily "valuable" as far as defining who he is and how he's different. What did impress me about Edwards was his statements on Education, but then again I was impressed with everyone's statements about education. As a Katrina evacuee, I must say that Edwards response to the question on the role of the federal government in helping regions recover after a disaster was pretty lame. The point should have been--and given Edwards many trips to NOLA he should have responded similarly--that New Orleans demands and deserves comprehensive and total federal rebuilding support since it was the Federal Levee system that significantly damaged the city--not the Hurricane. All in all, I just wasn't impressed with Edwards. My heart is with Kuchinich, and I'm willing to give him my vote in the first go-round. After that, Donald Duck could be the Democratic nominee and I would vote for her/him. Any of those candidates in Philadelphia last night would do a much better and more competent job in rebuilding our country than anything the Repes have to offer.
I was reading about super delegates, 700 party honchos who don't get chosen by anyone. You have the voters making their choice, and then you have the Democratic Party leadership making it's choice. Guess who wins?
I'm with madcowfree, we would be lucky to get an Edwards/Kucinich ticket. I will never vote for Clinton or Obama. Not unless they experience a conversion and come out for universal nealth care, out of Iraq now, and cancel NAFTA. Of course, Edwards isn't on that page either. But he's closer than they are.
No matter, I think the oligarchy in power will somehow get Clinton nominated. Guiliani looks like the oligarchy GOP candidate. Again I hope i'm wrong but look what happened when Kerry came out of nowhere backed by same group that supported Bush to defeat the much more anti-oligarchy early favorites.
I'd vote for a Edwards/Kucinich ticket....I think it's the best we'll get...
I have to say, and I've been a supporter of Dennis for a decade, that Edwards was far more impressive. Of course, he got to speak. Pretty sad that NBC felt threatened enough to sandbag him with the whole UFO thing.
As I said above, Edwards is the best person we'll be ALLOWED to have. More and more, I don't think that'll be a bad thing at all. I don't know how we could hope for a more progressive candidate in this country at this time.
Edwards for President. Kucinich for Cabinet (HHS or Labor).
And Kucinich? Who, I understand got the only spontaneous applause of the night?
Say what you will about his past, I think it is becoming very clear that Edwards is the only chance we have. All in all, he's pretty good, and we should recognize this as the rigged game it is and hope for the best person we're allowed to have.
Edwards is the one.